The quality of information I bring to this board is backed up by sources that are considered pretty reliable in the real world. While I don't think your example about the mission to the Atlantic is a case of propaganda, as much as complications Iran facing unanticipated problems realizing a mission it is planning and working on, the fact that Iran engages in as much propaganda as the nonsense you like to rely on isn't the issue. Surely, Iran engages in propaganda as well. But the issue here was reports I cited which didn't rely on Iranian propaganda or reports, and which you wanted to dispute without any basis whatsoever based on the gibberish you have written. Indeed, your own penchant for engaging in propaganda is evident by the tactics you prefer. In the context of the discussion which you felt you needed to divert by this nonsense, the issue that was being discussed was Iran's F-14 and the extend to which US efforts (which have been focused and have gone to extreme lengths) have been successful? Not a single, credible, source would imagine those efforts have been successful. Iran's F-14's have been tagged by and tagged US operated aircraft in recent years and every analyst who follows developments regarding Iran's F-14s knows they are being modernized, overhauled, and the F-14AM now carries the Fakour 90 missile. And there isn't anything else I posted on Iran's weapon systems which are in serious dispute. To what extent they can prove themselves in battle is a different issue, but many of them already have. As for being "selective" in my response, quite the opposite. The only thing I intentionally avoided responding to was about "Military Watch Magazine". As I mentioned, the publication is rated highly by many defense analyst and regarded among the top 5 defense publications. However, my understanding is that it uses current and former intelligence operatives and analyst, including those working for the CIA, who prefer to remain anonymous and doesn't attribute its articles. For that reason, its contributors are free to express their assessments without the need to engage in the propaganda and the restrictions that would ordinarily apply, but on the other side of the equation, no doubt there is less means to verify the weight of the analysis on the basis of the credentials of an identifiable person writing the article. For that reason, I tried to give you other sources to study as well, but alas, you are more interested in engaging in nonsense and propaganda yourself.